In the same year, she launched claims for consideration of an educational grant in the UK, giving reasons that courses in genetics were not offered in her country Germany.
The application was rejected on ground that Ms. Morgan did not meet conditions on paragraph five, clause two that is 5(2) of the Federal Law on encouragement of Education and Training BAfOG. Ms. Morgan was denied grant, because she was not continuing her learning in another member state, studies initially pursued in Germany for at least one year. She had started her’s in the UK and so, failed to satisfy that condition.
In the second case, Ms. Bucher began her studies in ergo-therapy in Netherlands, close to the German border. Living with her parents in Bonn, they moved to Duren, where she registered as her permanent residence before traveling to Heerlen for studies. Ms. Butcher applied for an educational grant to pursue training the Netherlands.
The application was rejected on condition that Ms. Bucher did not fulfill paragraph 5(1) of the BAfOG. It was alleged that Ms. Bucher established residence on the border to facilitate her training. Reason given for denial was, Ms. Bucher did not satisfy the conditions either on paragraph 5(1) of the BAfOG or those stated on 5(2). Entitlement to an educational grant as member state citizens to both applicants is the factual claim in the two cases that is C-11/06 and C-12/06
Questions referred to the Court of Justice for interpretation were two, the first question common in both cases. Does the rights of movement allocate for citizens in the Union under Articles 17 EC and 18 EC the rights to deter a Member State, in a case like Ms. Morgan’s and Bucher’s, from awarding an education or training grant to its nationals for a course of study in other Member States on ground that the course does not reflect a continuation of studies pursued at an educational institutional in their national